[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
N. Ganesh Allias Ganesh Yadav vs V. Samaiah on 2 June, 2025
KABC020010422020
BEFORE THE COURT OF 10th ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
AT: BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Mohammed Yunus Athani
B.A.,LL.B.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.203/2020
Dated this 02nd day of June, 2025
Petitioner: N. Ganesh @ Ganesh Yadav S/o
Narayanappa,
Aged about 20 years,
Residing at Naganahalli,
Gudipalli, Mulabagal,
Kolar District - 563 132.
(Sri M. Subramanya, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents: 1. V. Samaiah S/o Vanaraseppa,
Shankuchakrachara Nilaya,
7th Cross, Khadripura Main Road,
Byatarayaswamy Temple, Kolar.
(RC owner of Milk Canter bearing
Reg. No.KL-40-A-5339)
(Ex-parte)
2 MVC No.203/2020
2. A. M. Narayanaswamy S/o
Munishamy,
Aramakalahalli Village & Hobli,
Hosakote Post, Srinivasapura,
Kolar - 563 101.
(Policy Holder of Milk Canter
bearing Reg. No.KL-04-A-5339)
(Ex-parte)
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Co. Ltd.,
Golden Heights, 4th Floor,
No.1/2, 59th 'C' Cross, 4th M Block,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru - 560 010.
(Policy No.OG-19-1731-1831-
00000255, valid from 07-03-2019
to 06-03-2020)
(Sri Muralidhar Negavar,
Advocate)
4. Boyapati Sudhakar S/o Kanda
Swamy,
No.16-150, Sree Rama
Govindappa Street, Madanapalle,
Andhra Pradesh - 517 325.
(RC owner of Lorry bearing Reg.
No.AP-16-TH-4939)
(Ex-parte)
3 MVC No.203/2020
5. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd,
Regional Office, No.9/2,
Mahalakshmi Chambers, M.G.
Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
(Policy No.
61270231190100000748,
valid from 02-06-2019 to 01-06-
2020)
(Sri Ravi S. Samprathi, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from
the respondents, on account of grievous injuries sustained
by the petitioner in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 23-10-2019 at about 1:00 a.m., the petitioner was
on duty as a Supervisor and was proceeding in a Milk
Canter bearing Reg. No.KL-40-A-5339, the same being
driven by its driver towards Bengaluru side, on Kolar-
Bengaluru NH-75 road, in rash and negligent manner,
4 MVC No.203/2020endangering to human life, without observing the traffic
rules and regulations. While so proceeding, when they
reached near I.B. cross, Hosakote town, the driver of
another lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-16-TH-4939, which was
moving ahead of the said milk canter in rash and negligent
manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations,
applied sudden break, on account of which the accident has
occurred. Due to the said impact, the petitioner has
sustained grievous injuries all over his body. Immediately
after the accident, he was shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital
and Research Centre, Tamaka, Kolar, wherein he took
treatment as an in-patient. Earlier to the accident, he was
working as Supervisor in Milk Dairy and apart from that he
was doing agricultural operation and milk vending business
and was earning sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. But, due to
the accidental injuries, he has become permanently
disabled and thereby lost his earning capacity. The
Hosakote Police have registered the case against the
5 MVC No.203/2020drivers of the said Milk Canter bearing Reg. No.KL-40-A-
5339 and lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-16-TH-4939, for the
offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of
I.P.C. The respondent No.1 is the R.C. owner, respondent
No.2 is the policy holder and respondent No.3 is the insurer
of the Milk Canter and respondent No.4 is the owner and
respondent No.5 is the insurer of the lorry bearing Reg.
No.AP-16-TH-4939. Hence, they are jointly and severally
liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, it is
prayed to allow the petition and award compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/- with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the
respondents No.3 and 5 have appeared through their
counsel and filed their separate written statements.
Whereas, the respondents No.1, 2 and 4 did not choose to
appear and remained absent. Hence, the respondents No.1,
2 and 4 are placed as ex-parte.
6 MVC No.203/2020
4. The respondent No.3 in its written statement has
denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has
admitted the issuance of insurance policy bearing No.OG-19-
1731-1831-00000255 in favour of respondent No.2 in respect
of Eicher Canter bearing No.KL-40-A-5339, for the period
from 07-03-2019 to 06-03-2020 and the same was in force as
on the date of accident. It seeks protection under Section
149(2) of Motor Vehicle Act. It has contended that, there is no
negligence on the part of the driver of its insured vehicle, as
he was proceeding carefully, cautiously, by following the
traffic rules and regulations. On the contrary, the accident
has caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the third party lorry bearing No.AP-16-TH-4939, as
the driver of the same has suddenly stopped the vehicle
without giving any indications. Further it is contended that,
the driver of the Milk Canter bearing No.KL-40-A-5339 was
not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the
same as on the date of accident. Further, it has sought
7 MVC No.203/2020
permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.1, as
per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It has denied the
age, income and avocation of the petitioner, injuries
sustained, medical expenses incurred and treatment taken
by him. It has contended that, though there is no negligence
on the part of the driver of the insured vehicle, the petitioner
was unauthorisedly traveling in the insured vehicle contrary
to the Motor Vehicles Rules and Regulations and his risk is
not been covered under the policy. By allowing the petitioner
to travel in the insured vehicle, the respondent No.1 has
violated the terms and conditions of the policy and this
respondent is not liable to indemnify him. It has contended
that, the petition is bad for non compliance of provision
under Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. It has
contended that, the compensation claimed is highly
excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials and
contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
8 MVC No.203/2020
5. Whereas, the respondent No.5 in his written statement
has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It seeks
protection under Section 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicle Act. It
has contended that, the petition is bad for non compliance of
provision under Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles
Act. Further it is contended that, the driver of the lorry
bearing No.AP-16-TH-4939 was not holding valid and
effective driving licence to drive the same and the said lorry
was not having valid permit, route permit and fitness
certificate as on the date of accident. It has admitted the
issuance of insurance policy in favour of respondent No.4 in
respect of lorry bearing No.AP-16-TH-4939 and its validity as
on the date of accident. It has denied the occurrence of the
accident and involvement of lorry in the alleged accident. It
has contended that, the lorry in question did not involve in
the accident nor caused accidental injuries to the petitioner,
the petitioner in collusion with the jurisdictional police have
created false records and story about the manner and
9 MVC No.203/2020
involvement of lorry to get compensation and lodged a false
complaint. Further it is contended that, as on the date of
accident, the insured lorry was being driven in a reasonable
speed and careful manner and there was no rashness or
negligence on the part of the driver of the insured lorry. The
accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of
the driver of Canter bearing No.KL-40-A-5339, who without
having proper look out at the vehicular movements on the
road and without noticing oncoming vehicles, without
maintaining safe distance between the vehicles proceeding
ahead, was driving his vehicle recklessly and carelessly. The
accident has taken place due to the negligence on the part of
the driver of canter and not due to the negligence on the
part of the driver of the insured lorry. It has denied the age,
income and avocation of the petitioner, injuries sustained,
medical expenses incurred and treatment taken by him.
Further, it has sought permission to contest even on behalf
of respondent No.1, as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles
10 MVC No.203/2020
Act. It has contended that, the compensation claimed is
highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials and
contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the
following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has
sustained grievous injuries due to the road
traffic accident, alleged to have occurred
on 23-10-2019 at about 1.00 a.m., due to
the rash and negligent driving of the
drivers of the Milk Canter bearing Reg.
No.KL-40-A-5339 and Lorry bearing Reg.
No.AP-16-TH-4939 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum
and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
11 MVC No.203/2020
7. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has got
examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 21 documents
as Ex.P.1 to 21. On the other hand, the respondent No.3 has
examined its Assistant Manager as R.W.1 and got marked 3
documents as Ex.R.1 to 3. The respondent No.5 has not
adduced any evidence on its behalf.
8. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and
perused the entire material placed on record.
9. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative
Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the
following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioner that, on
23-10-2019 at about 1:00 a.m., when he was on duty as a
Supervisor and was proceeding in a Milk Canter bearing
12 MVC No.203/2020
Reg. No.KL-40-A-5339, the same being driven by its driver
towards Bengaluru side, on Kolar-Bengaluru NH-75 road, in
rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic
rules and regulations, near I.B. cross, Hosakote town, the
driver of another lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-16-TH-4939,
which was moving ahead of the said milk canter in rash and
negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and
regulations, applied sudden break, on account of which the
accident has occurred. Due to the said impact, the
petitioner has sustained grievous injuries all over his body.
Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident he was
working as Supervisor in Milk Dairy, was doing agricultural
operation and milk vending business and was earning sum
of Rs.30,000/- per month. But, due to the accidental injuries,
he has become permanently disabled and thereby lost his
earning capacity.
11. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has got
examined himself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief
13 MVC No.203/2020
affidavit, wherein he has reiterated the entire averments
made in the petition. Further, in support of his oral
evidence, the petitioner has got marked total 21 documents
as Ex.P.1 to 21. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true
copy of F.I.R. and first information statement, Ex.P.2 is
discharge summary, Ex.P.3 is final bill, Ex.P.4 & 5 are
laboratory reports, Ex.P.6 are medical prescriptions (total
24), Ex.P.7 are blood bank cross checking reports (total 15),
Ex.P.8 are medical bills (total 97), Ex.P.9 is medical history,
Ex.P.10 is discharge summary, Ex.P.11 is x-ray, Ex.P.12 are
C.D. (total 3), Ex.P.13 are medical prescriptions (total 9),
Ex.P.14 are medical bills (total 9), Ex.P.15 to 18 are certified
copy of order-sheet, charge-sheet, plea of A-1 and A-2 in
C.C.No.835/2020, Ex.P.19 is certified copy of Motor Vehicles
Accident Report, Ex.P.20 is certified copy of spot mahazar
and Ex.P.21 is x-ray.
12. On meticulously going through the above police
documents marked as Ex.P.1 and 15 to 20, prima-facia it
14 MVC No.203/2020
reveals that, the accident in question has taken place due to
rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the
vehicles i.e. Milk Canter bearing Reg. No.KL-40-A-5339 and
Lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-16-TH-4939. Further it reveals
that, due to said impact the petitioner has sustained
grievous injuries on his left leg and back and other parts of
the body. The investigation officer in his final report,
marked as Ex.P.16, has clearly stated that, the said accident
has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the
drivers of the Milk Canter bearing Reg. No.KL-40-A-5339
and Lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-16-TH-4939 and the
petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the said
accident.
13. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that, in the
present case, the date, time and place of accident,
involvement of the Milk Canter bearing Reg. No.KL-40-A-
5339 and Lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-16-TH-4939 in the said
accident and the issuance of insurance policy by the
15 MVC No.203/2020
respondents No.3 and 5 in respect of Milk Canter bearing
Reg. No.KL-40-A-5339 and Lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-16-TH-
4939 and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in
dispute. Further, the oral and documentary evidence placed
on record by the petitioner has remained undisputed by the
owners of offending vehicles/Respondents No.1 and 4, as
they did not choose to appear and contest the case of the
petitioner. Whereas, the respondent No.3 & 5 insurance
companies have denied the above stated facts and
circumstances of the accident and have taken specific
defence that, there is no negligence on the part of the
driver of their respective insured vehicles and the said
accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the respective opposite vehicle. Further, the respondent
No.3 has taken specific contention that, at the time of
accident the petitioner was traveling in the Milk Canter
bearing Reg. No.KL-40-A-5339 as an unauthorised
passenger. But, they have failed to establish the said
16 MVC No.203/2020
contentions. The respondent No.5 has neither adduced any
evidence nor it has produced any document to establish the
contentions taken in its written statement. Except, the self
serving statements of respondent No.3/R.W.1, who is the
representative/Assistant Manager of the respondent No.3
insurance company, there is absolutely no other oral or
documentary evidence placed on record by the
respondents No.3 to show that, the said accident has taken
place due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of
offending Milk Canter bearing Reg. No.AP-16-TH-4939 and
there was no negligence on the part of the driver of its
insured lorry bearing Reg. No.KL-40-A-5339. On the other
hand, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record
by the petitioner clearly establishes that, the accident in
question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving
of the drivers of both the offending vehicles and the
petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the said
17 MVC No.203/2020
accident. The drivers of both the vehicles have equally
contributed in the cause of accident.
14. Further, the Ex.P.20 spot mahazar also clearly speaks
that, the said accident has taken place on Kolar-Bengaluru
NH-75 road, near I.B. Cross, Hosakote Town, due to dashing
of the Milk Canter bearing Reg. No.KL-40-A-5339 to the rare
portion of Lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-16-TH-4939. Further, as
per the Ex.P.19 Motor Vehicle Accident Report, the accident
is not caused due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles
involved in the accident. When the accident was not caused
due to the any mechanical defects in the offending Milk
Canter bearing Reg. No.KL-40-A-5339 and Lorry bearing
Reg. No.AP-16-TH-4939, then in the present facts and
circumstances of the case, it can be presumed that, the said
accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the drivers of both the offending vehicles. Further, the
investigation officer in his final report, marked as Ex.P.16,
has also clearly stated that, the said accident is caused due
18 MVC No.203/2020
to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the
offending vehicles i.e. Milk Canter bearing Reg. No.KL-40-A-
5339 and Lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-16-TH-4939. Admittedly,
the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged
by the owners or the drivers of said offending vehicles.
Further, it is pertinent to note that, the drivers of both the
offending vehicles have pleaded guilty in the criminal
proceedings in C.C.No.835/2020 and they have been
convicted for the offences punishable under Sec.279 & 338
of I.P.C., by the Hon’ble Prl Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Hoskote. In
such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the
final report of the investigation officer and other police
records, regarding the date, time and place of accident,
involvement of the offending vehicles in the accident, rash
and negligent driving of the drivers of both the offending
vehicles and injuries caused to the petitioner in the said
accident.
19 MVC No.203/2020
15. Further, on meticulously going through the Ex.P.2 and
10 discharge summaries, Ex.P.4 & 5 laboratory reports and
Ex.P.11 x-ray, it clearly reveals that, the petitioner has
suffered grievous injuries in the said road traffic accident.
The petitioner has suffered (1) closed displaced fracture of
left proximal 1/3rd femur without DNVD, (2) right
undisplaced superior pubic ramus fracture, (3) left
undisplaced inferior pubic ramus fracture, (4) pubic
diastasis and (5) open type 3B left lateral malleolus fracture.
On the other hand, there is no rebuttal evidence produced
by the respondents to show that, the above medical records
are false documents. There is nothing on record to
disbelieve the evidence placed on record by the petitioner.
Therefore, in such circumstances and in the light of above
observations, it can be safely held that, the respondents
No.3 and 5 have failed to rebut the oral and documentary
evidence placed on record by the petitioner regarding the
rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the
20 MVC No.203/2020
offending vehicles and injuries sustained by the petitioner
in the said accident.
16. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case
relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not
required to prove the case as required to be done in a
criminal trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of
Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in
(2011) SCC 635, has clearly held that, “in a road accident
claim cases the strict principle of proof in a criminal case
are not required.”
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi
and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation
and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, has clearly held
that, ” in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the
claimants are merely required to establish their case on
touch stone of preponderance of probability and the
21 MVC No.203/2020
standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be
applied.”
18. Therefore, in the light of observations made in the
above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this
Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioner has
successfully proved that, he has sustained grievous injuries
in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 23-10-2019 at
about 1:00 a.m., on Kolar-Bengaluru NH-75 road, near I.B.
Cross, Hosakote Town, due to rash and negligent driving of
the drivers of both the offending vehicles i.e. Milk Canter
bearing Reg. No.KL-40-A-5339 and Lorry bearing Reg.
No.AP-16-TH-4939. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in
Affirmative.
19. Issue No.2: While answering above issue this Court
has come to conclusion that, the petitioner has successfully
proved that, the accident has occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the drivers of both the offending
22 MVC No.203/2020
vehicles i.e. Milk Canter bearing Reg. No.KL-40-A-5339 and
Lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-16-TH-4939 and he has sustained
grievous injuries in the said accident. Therefore, this Court
is of the further opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation under various heads. The damages are to be
assessed under two heads i.e. pecuniary damages, such as
medical treatment, attendants, transport, actual loss of
earning, future loss of earning etc., and non pecuniary
damages, such as mental and physical shock, loss of
amenities, loss of expectation of life, loss of prospects of
marriage etc. The petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
i) Towards loss of future income: The petitioner has
deposed that, earlier to the accident he was working as
Supervisor in Milk Dairy, he was doing agricultural
operation and milk vending business and was earning sum
of Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries, he
has become permanently disabled and thereby lost his
23 MVC No.203/2020learning capacity. But, the petitioner has neither produced
any document nor examined any doctor to establish that,
due to injuries sustained in the accident in question, he has
suffered any physical disability or deformity. The petitioner
has failed to prove that, due to accidental injuries he has
suffered any physical disability and he is not in a position to
perform his regular work and thereby, he has lost his
learning capacity. In such circumstances, the question of
awarding compensation under head loss of future income
due to permanent physical disability does not arise at all.
Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation
under the head of loss of future income due to disability.
ii) Medical expenses: The petitioner has deposed
that, he has incurred expenses of Rs.2,50,000/- towards
medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental
charge etc. In order to prove the same, he has produced
107 medical bills, as per Ex.P.3, 8 and 14. All the bills have
been examined carefully and found that, out of total
24 MVC No.203/2020
medical bills marked as Ex.P.8, the bills at serial No.2, 5, 8,
19 an 78 are advance receipts. Therefore, the said bills are
not taken into consideration. Accordingly, it is held that, the
petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,73,893/-
towards medical expenses.
iii) Pain and sufferings: In the present case the
petitioner has sustained grievous injuries i.e. (1) closed
displaced fracture of left proximal 1/3rd femur without
DNVD, (2) right undisplaced superior pubic ramus fracture,
(3) left undisplaced inferior pubic ramus fracture, (4) pubic
diastasis and (5) open type 3B left lateral malleolus fracture.
As per Ex.P.2 and 10 discharge summaries, the petitioner
has taken treatment as in-patient for 46 days from 23-10-
2019 to 29-11-2019 and 02-01-2023 to 09-01-2023, in R.L.
Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre, Kolar. In such
circumstances, certainly the petitioner would have suffered
pain and sufferings. Therefore, taking into considering the
injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court is of the
25 MVC No.203/2020
opinion that, compensation amount of Rs.60,000/- is to be
awarded to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings.
iv) Attendant charges: As per Ex.P.2 and 10
discharge summaries, the petitioner has taken treatment as
in-patient for 46 days in R.L. Jalappa Hospital and Research
Centre, Kolar. He might have spent considerable amount
towards attendant charges during the said period.
Therefore, compensation of Rs.1000 x 46 = Rs.46,000/- is
awarded towards the attendant charges.
v) Food and nourishment: As per Ex.P.2 and 10
discharge summaries, the petitioner has taken treatment as
in-patient for 46 days in R.L. Jalappa Hospital and Research
Centre, Kolar. He might have spent considerable amount
towards food and nourishment during the said period.
Therefore, compensation of Rs.800 x 46 = Rs.36,800/- is
awarded towards food and nourishment charges.
vi) Conveyance expenses: The petitioner is the
resident of Naganahalli, Gudipalli, Mulabagal, Kolar District,
26 MVC No.203/2020
the accident has occurred on Kolar-Bengaluru NH-75 road,
near I.B. Cross, Hosakote Town, and he has taken treatment
at R.L. Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre, Kolar. Taking
into consideration the distance in between all the above
three places, compensation of Rs.10,000/- is awarded
towards conveyance.
vii) Loss of income during treatment period: The
petitioner has deposed in his evidence that, before the
accident he was working as Supervisor in Milk Dairy, he was
doing agricultural operation and milk vending business and
was earning sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. Further, he has
deposed that, due to grievous injuries suffered in the said
accident he is unable to do his work. The respondents No.3
and 5 have specifically denied the same. In such
circumstances, the burden was on the petitioner to prove
his avocation and income. But, the petitioner has failed to
establish the same through cogent and corroborative
evidence. He has not produced any document to show that,
27 MVC No.203/2020
before accident he was working as Supervisor in Milk Dairy,
he was doing agricultural operation and milk vending
business and was earning sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. In
such circumstances, there is no other option before this
Court except to consider the notional income as per the
guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
The accident has taken place in the year 2019. Hence, the
notional income of the petitioner is considered as
Rs.14,000/- per month. The petitioner has taken treatment
for 46 days as in-patient at R.L. Jalappa Hospital and
Research Centre, Kolar, for the grievous injuries caused to
him. He might have taken rest for about 5 months and lost
his income for the said period. Therefore, Rs.14,000 x 6 =
Rs.84,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during
treatment period.
viii) Loss of amenities: It is evident from the
documents placed on record that, as on the date of accident
the age of the petitioner was 20 years and unfortunately he
28 MVC No.203/2020
has suffered grievous injuries in the said accident and
undergone treatment for 46 days as in-patient in R.L.
Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre, Kolar. Further, it
might have took at least 6 months for complete curing of
the injuries suffered by him. Therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that, awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/-
towards loss of amenities during the treatment period
would be just and reasonable.
ix) Future medical expenses: The petitioner has
neither adduced any evidence nor produced any document
to show that he requires any further treatment for the
injuries sustained in the accident. In such circumstances,
the question of awarding future medical expenses does not
arise at all. Therefore, no compensation is awarded in this
particular head.
20. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation under different heads as follows :
1. Loss of future income Nil
29 MVC No.203/2020
2. Medical expenses 1,73,893-00
3. Pain and sufferings 60,000-00
4. Attendant charges 46,000-00
5. Food and nourishment 36,800-00
6. Conveyance expenses 10,000-00
7. Loss of income during 84,000-00
treatment period
8. Loss of amenities 30,000-00
9. Future medical expenses Nil
Total Rs. 4,40,693-00In all, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.4,40,693/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition till its realization.
21. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the
respondents No.1 and 4 are the owners and respondents
No.3 and 5 are the insurers of the offending Milk Canter
bearing Reg. No.KL-40-A-5339 and Lorry bearing Reg.
No.AP-16-TH-4939 respectively. Further, the evidence
placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that,
due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the
30 MVC No.203/2020
offending vehicles i.e. Milk Canter bearing Reg. No.KL-40-A-
5339 and Lorry bearing Reg. No.AP-16-TH-4939 the said
accident has occurred. In such circumstances, the
respondents No.1 and 4 being the owners of said vehicles
are vicariously liable to compensate for the damages
caused by the said vehicles. The respondents No.3 and 5
being the insurers of said vehicles are liable to indemnify
the respondents No.1 and 4.
22. But, the respondent No.3 has taken specific defence
that, at the time of accident the petitioner was traveling in
the Milk Canter bearing Reg. No.KL-40-A-5339 as a
gratuitous passenger, which is contrary to the Motor
Vehicles Rules and Regulations and thereby, the insured
has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy. Hence, the respondent No.3 insurance company is
not liable to indemnify the insured/respondent No.1. The
petitioner/P.W.1 has unequivocally denied the same in his
cross-examination. The petitioner has unequivocally denied
31 MVC No.203/2020
the suggestion made in his cross-examination that, at the
time of accident he was traveling in the Milk Canter bearing
Reg. No.KL-40-A-5339 as a gratuitous passenger and not as
a Supervisor. Though the respondent No.3 has taken the
above specific defence, it has failed to establish the said
contention. There is absolutely no evidence placed on
record by the respondent No.3 to show that, at the time of
accident the petitioner was traveling in the said vehicle as a
gratuitous passenger. Even, nothing with respect to same
has been brought out in the cross-examination of P.W.1.
Therefore, in such circumstances and for the above stated
reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the
respondents No.1, 3, 4 & 5 are jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation to the petitioner. However, the
primary liability to pay the compensation to the petitioner is
on the respondents No.3 and 5. Therefore, for the above
stated reasons, holding that the respondent No.3 & 5 are
32 MVC No.203/2020
equally liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,40,693/- to the
petitioner, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
23. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to
pass the following order:
ORDER
The petition is partly allowed with
costs.
The petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.4,40,693/- (Rupees
four lakh forty thousand six hundred
and ninety three only) with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of
petition till realisation.
The respondents are jointly and
severally liable to pay the above
compensation amount to the
petitioner. However, the primary
liability to pay the compensation
amount is fastened on respondents
No.3 and 5 – Insurance Companies and
they are directed to pay the said
33 MVC No.203/2020amount equally to the petitioner,
within two months from the date of this
order.
The entire compensation amount
with proportionate interest shall be
released in favour of the petitioner
through e-payment on proper
identification and verification.
Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him,
corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 02nd day of June,
2025).
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
P.W.1: N. Ganesh @ Ganesh Yadav S/o
Narayanappa
Documents marked on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R. and First Information
Statement
Ex.P.2: Discharge Summary
Ex.P.3: Final Bill
Ex.P.4 & 5: Laboratory Reports (total 18)
34 MVC No.203/2020Ex.P.6: Medical Prescriptions (total 24)
Ex.P.7: Blood Bank Cross Checking Reports (total
15)
Ex.P.8: Medical Bills (total 97) of Rs.1,23,968/-
Ex.P.9: Medical History Ex.P.10: Discharge Summary Ex.P.11: X-ray Ex.P.12: C.D. (total 3) Ex.P.13: Medical Prescriptions (total 9) Ex.P.14: Medical Bills (total 9)
Ex.P.15 to Certified copy of Order-sheet, Charge-
18: sheet, Plea of A-1 and A-2 in C.C.
No.835/2020
Ex.P.19: Certified copy of M.V.A. Reports
Ex.P.20: Certified copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.21: X-ray
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
R.W.1: Chaitresh D. Habbu S/o Diwakar Habbu
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1: True copy of Insurance Policy
Ex.R.2: Copy of Notice issued to Respondent No.2
Ex.R.3: Postal Receipt
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed
by MOHAMMED
MOHAMMED YUNUS A
YUNUS A ATHANI
ATHANI Date:
2025.06.09
11:22:42 +0530
[ad_2]
Source link